|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
05-02-2011, 12:04 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
I'm getting a feeling of some squirming here! Although I agree with Rob
If I agreet o binding arbitration on concrete issues, with my church trustees as the arbitrators, that is different how exactly than an arbitration company?
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
05-02-2011, 12:18 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
I'm getting a feeling of some squirming here! Although I agree with Rob
If I agreet o binding arbitration on concrete issues, with my church trustees as the arbitrators, that is different how exactly than an arbitration company?
Pete
|
Because, if the court is called upon to enforce the arbitration decision by the church, it must give some deference to the decision-maker, but one point of review that requires less deference is whether the arbitrator applied the correct rule of law. If the arbitrator resolved the dispute on religious principles, the power of the state can't be used to enforce those religious principles. If you are saying that you want a religious arbitration to stand on the same footing as a commercial arbitration, you are implicitly saying that if the matter is to be enforced in the courts, you are submitting the religious determination to the courts for review. That is a result that I would would not be comfortable with, and I doubt you would either.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
05-02-2011, 12:21 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
In some old fashioned church, a property dispute has arisen, and the folks have agreed to abide by the decision of the elders.
The loser won't perform. That has no validity?
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
05-02-2011, 12:34 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
In some old fashioned church, a property dispute has arisen, and the folks have agreed to abide by the decision of the elders.
The loser won't perform. That has no validity?
Pete
|
Mixing apples and oranges Pete. An arbitration proceeding is when a third, supposedly neutral party, is called in to resolve a dispute between two parties. In your example, the members of an organization have agreed to respect the authority of a group within the organization. The state has an interest in resolving the issue of title to property. Without research, I could not say whether a civil authority would use its coercive power to evict one of two groups claiming a religious basis for control of the property. My answer to that is a classic legal opinion: "it depends."
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
05-02-2011, 12:55 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
I don't know enough. But what I'm having a hard time with is, all things being equal, a church should not be treated differently than anyone or thing else.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
05-02-2011, 02:35 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
I don't know enough. But what I'm having a hard time with is, all things being equal, a church should not be treated differently than anyone or thing else.
Pete
|
I don't know.
I guess the idea is that church has great social value. If it does (I am not arguing if it does or doesn't) I have no problem with it being treated differently.
(maybe a little off subject)
|
05-02-2011, 02:38 PM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
I don't know.
I guess the idea is that church has great social value. If it does (I am not arguing if it does or doesn't) I have no problem with it being treated differently.
|
In my experience it is where all the hypocrits gather once a week to recharge.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
05-02-2011, 02:48 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
BAM! ROTFLMAO! Rob, you get the cynicism award this week
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
05-02-2011, 02:49 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
I don't know enough. But what I'm having a hard time with is, all things being equal, a church should not be treated differently than anyone or thing else.
Pete
|
There are a line of cases discussing "excessive entanglement" between the government and religion. The way any arbitration decision in the private sector would be treated would be that if either party goes to court to enforce the arbitration award, the court will conduct a limited review of the award, including a review of the law applied to the decision. If the law applied were religious doctrine, the court would be in the position of A) enforcing a religious doctrine or B) rejecting a particular religious doctrine. Each of those results creates excessive entanglement between the state and religion. In other words, the First Amendment prevents the church from being treated the same way as anyone else.
For the same reason, however, anyone who chooses to voluntarily submit a dispute to religious arbitration and voluntarily (or out of a sense of honor or obligation) comply, the state will not interfere with that choice.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
05-02-2011, 02:54 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
I fully understand that D and agree they have NO PLACE in that at all
But I do know that the courts get involved over church schisms (who owns what?) etc, and am talking about what would be secular matters from the courts' POV.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.
|